What Does Taking Up One’s Cross Mean?

Some of this blog’s readers were surprised that I quoted Jesus’ words in my July 20 post. What I was advocating with those words, though, is certainly relevant for people who are adherents of other religions—or of no religion—also. When carefully considered, many of the latter may well be implementing Jesus’ words more than most conservative evangelical Christians are. 

In this post I am thinking primarily of Jesus’ words in Luke 9:23.** Here is the NRSV translation of that verse: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”  

Traditionally, that important verse has been interpreted along the following lines, and here again I am using assistance from Claude, my A.I. “buddy.” (He/it told me in less than five seconds what I would have written in 15 minutes or more before chatbots became available.)

For many/most conservative evangelicals, taking up one’s cross means “personal sacrifice or suffering endured for one’s faith—enduring persecution, ridicule, or hardship for holding to Christian belief and behavior (often framed around culture-war flashpoints: refusing certain entertainment, standing firm on sexual ethics, facing mockery for evangelizing).”

This is the “quietist or status-quo-affirming” position. Since the cross is about internal spiritual struggle, it is not seen as having anything directly to do with the political world. If it does become a bit politicized, it is usually understood as bearing social stigma for “traditional values” positions.

However, the real meaning of Jesus’ words in about taking up one’s cross is quite different.

New Testament Christians were opposed by both religious and political powers. The Jewish leaders saw Jesus and his followers as a threat to their religious authority, and Caesar saw Jesus, who claimed to be Lord, and the Christians who called him Lord as a threat to his political power. Both powers first wanted to get rid of Jesus and then sought to eradicate his followers.

Crucifixion was one of the main forms of capital punishment used by Rome in New Testament times. It was specifically used for insurrectionists and rebels against Roman rule. That means of execution was designed to be maximally public and degrading. It was usually carried out along roadsides near cities, precisely as a deterrent against sedition.

“Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’” (John 19:19).

That’s part of why the charge on Jesus’s cross ("King of the Jews") matters—it marks him as executed for the crime of insurrection/treason against Rome, not blasphemy.

So, what does taking up one’s cross mean in the present day for us USAmericans? Among other things, it means opposing the Trump “regime” and his efforts to demonize his political opponents by calling them Communists (see this YouTube video of his July 4 speech).

_____*

** Were these really the words of Jesus? My local Thinking Friend Phil says that he thinks the same words in the Sermon on the Mount were Matthew’s words and not necessarily something that Jesus said. I disagreed, saying to Phil that even though the writer of the Gospel of Matthew may not have literally heard and written down those words when he heard Jesus say them, I think they would have been accurately handed down by “oral tradition,” which was very reliable in New Testament times, long before there were printed documents to hand down.

 

Aspiring to Be a Voice of Reason and Guidance

Early on the morning of July 12, I had a very vivid dream about the world being in chaos. I then woke up thinking, “The world’s in chaos and needs voices of reason and guidance.” At that point, I decided that I need to spend less time doing rather meaningless activities and more time seeking to be an outspoken voice of reason and guidance. Please join me in that endeavor.

Is the world in chaos? Well, it is not as chaotic as I saw in my dream that morning. But, yes, in many ways I think there are ample reasons to assert that the world today is, indeed, in chaos.

The physical world is in chaos because of environmental problems that are bad now and only going to get worse. For example, the glaciers are melting, the seas are rising, droughts are increasing, and reservoir levels are falling. We are experiencing the effects of “overshoot,” about which some knowledgeable people have warned us about for a long time.**

The geopolitical world is also in chaos in many places because of wars (such as in Iran, Ukraine, Sudan) and widespread immigration (because of necessity or desire). Co-Pilot told me that the world is experiencing the highest levels of forced displacement ever recorded, driven by war, persecution, state collapse, climate disasters, and economic desperation

In the world of ordinary people, chaos is seen in what can be called social decadence. A large part of such moral decadence is due to the President, about whom Michael Steele recently called a “disgusting man … with no moral code. “(This was in March, said in reaction to Trump’s gloating over Robert Mueller’s death.)

The current social decadence in the U.S. under the present POTUS is evident to anyone willing to look objectively. That decadence was quite apparent in the primetime speech Trump delivered on July 16.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist (2008) and currently a Distinguished Professor of Law. He has also been an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times. Early on July 17, he posted on his Substack account “more or less every word he spoke was a lie, including ‘a,’ ‘and,’ and ‘the’.”

And this is what Jen Rubin asserted on her July 13 Substack post: “To pretend there is any moral equivalence between the parties when it comes to handling moral depravity is to become an apologist for the party that has eschewed every standard of decency in favor of ruthless pursuit of power and cultist loyalty to a depraved narcissist.”

Fairly recently, I have become a regular reader of David Rothkopf’s Substack posts. (He is a foreign‑policy analyst and author. Among his many books is Traitor: A History of American Betrayal from Benedict Arnold to Donald Trump, issued shortly before the 2020 presidential election.)

On the same day Rubin’s article was posted, Rothkopf (b. 1955) wrote how the USAmerican society

became so degraded, our values so diluted by our desire to be comfortable, that we allowed the most profoundly evil political leader in our history to become president and to echo the Nazis and authoritarians from centuries past as he compiled an administration, built a government, of people who were equally morally bereft, amoral, and immoral.

That is not to say that any democratically elected leader will be a saint or perfect. That is impossible. But we can value moral rectitude more than we do.

What can we do to be a voice of reason and guidance in this chaotic world? This is perhaps the question that most of us have, especially those of us who were adults (at least 18) when the U.S. celebrated its 200^th anniversary.

One of Jesus’ most challenging and most neglected admonition is “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23, NRSV). 

As you know, Jesus also said, “Come to me, all you who are struggling hard and carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest. Put on my yoke, and learn from me. I’m gentle and humble. And you will find rest for yourselves.” (Matt. 11:28-29).

Most Christians, including most preachers/pastors, have emphasized the Matthew passage far more than the challenging words from Luke 9. But rest has meaning only after strenuous efforts for doing good and being a voice for reason and guidance.

_____

** Many of you will remember that I have written about this in the past, inspired to do so by Michael Dowd (1958~2023), the eco-theologian and “evolutionary evangelist.” Here is a link to a blog article in which I wrote about Dowd and his challenging ideas:

https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2022/01/facing-grief-of-looking-up-looking.html

 

Advocating Democratic Socialism

Back in September 2019, I posted a blog article titled “Was Jesus a Socialist?” Soon after making that post, I became increasingly aware of democratic socialism. Even though I am not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA, the largest socialist organization in the U.S., founded in 1982), I now self-identify as a democratic socialist. 

Democratic socialism is often misunderstood and unfairly maligned. For example, on July 1, Gary Bauer’s daily “American Values” email began,

We will celebrate America’s 250th birthday this weekend. Whether America celebrates its 300th birthday 50 years from now is increasingly in doubt because our constitutional Republic is in danger! The danger to our freedom is not Donald Trump, who wants to make America great again. The danger is the radical Left that hates America and wants to “fundamentally transform” it.**

Bauer goes on to write, “Yesterday’s election results in Colorado prove that the communist / Marxist victories in New York City were not just a fluke isolated to New York City.” Then he laments, “An anti-American, pro-Hamas communist defeated a far-left, 30-year incumbent in the Democrat primary for the Denver-area House seat.”

Bauer is an educated man, and he no doubt knows the distinct difference between democratic socialism and communism. But he can conflate the two in order to increase donations from the MAGA supporters who don’t know the difference. (People seeking donations don’t necessarily tell the whole truth in order to profit from the ignorance of the general public.)

It is a push to say that Rep. DeGette is “far-left,” but it is almost libelous to say that Melat Kiros is anti-American, pro-Hamas, and/or a communist. In that June 30 Colorado primary election, 29-year-old candidate Kiros defeated the incumbent, who was seeking her 15^th term, first elected when Kiros was still an infant in her native Ethiopia.

Kiros is aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, but that is far from communism. DSA’s platform centers on things like Medicare for all, workers’ rights, and curbing corporate/billionaire power through democratic and electoral means.

Kiros’s own reported platform—ending U.S. aid to Israel, Medicare for all, abolishing ICE—is directly linked to DSA’s standard policy agenda but certainly not to communist aspirations. DSA’s and Kiros’s platform are far different from the classic communist program of abolishing private property via revolution and one-party state control.

On July 3, President Trump delivered an anti-communist speech at Mount Rushmore National Memorial in Keystone, South Dakota. Unlike Bauer, it is quite likely that the POTUS doesn’t clearly understand the difference between communism and democratic socialism.

Three days later, Robert Reich posted “Why Is He Using the Communist Trump Card?” on his Substack account. Reich writes, “Trump has run out of cards to play in the midterm elections, which is why he’s now talking about the “communist menace.”

Reich continues accusing the POTUS of “resorting to the oldest of right-wing tropes—accusing Democrats (especially a rising generation of new, young, vigorous Democratic politicians) of being commies.”

In that July 3 speech, Trump asserted, “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success. You can be a communist, or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both.”

Unlike Bauer, perhaps Trump doesn’t know the difference between democratic socialism and communism. Unfortunately, many of his MAGA supporters continue to take what he says as true and trustworthy, so many of them have strong negative feelings toward democratic socialism.

A Facebook friend sent me a screenshot from Fox News showing what the Democratic Socialists of America advocate, and those were given as reasons for their opposition to the DSA. The image showed Medicare for all, college for all, housing for all, 32 hour workweek, tax the rich, Green New Deal, and free Palestine.

Except for the latter, which is widely (and wrongly) interpreted as being “anti-Semitic,” the other five are quite popular with most U.S. citizens except for the die-hard MAGA supporters.

I continue to advocate for democratic socialism, which aims to expand public ownership and workplace democracy while preserving political democracy. It’s about shifting more economic power to workers and the public. That also shifts the power from the control of billionaires to the workers in the 98% who are not wealthy.

That sounds good to me. What do you think?

_____

** Gary Bauer (b. 1946 in Kentucky) grew up as a Southern Baptist and graduated from Georgetown College (in Kentucky), a traditional SB school (similar to William Jewell College, my alma mater). He started an organization with the name “American Values” in 2007 and has been the president of it until the present. He sends out American Values emails almost daily. He has long been one of the prime leaders of conservative evangelicalism in the U.S.

Burned by Billionaires: Applauding Chuck Collins

Chuck Collins is not a household name, and I had not heard of him until recently.*¹ But his new (2025) book, Burned by Billionaires (BbB) is an excellent work that is especially pertinent now, as for the first time a billionaire occupies the White House and has surrounded himself with fellow billionaires and “centi-millionaires” (people whose net worth is over $100 million).

Collins was “born on third base,” as he says in an earlier book.*² He is the great‑grandson of Oscar F. Mayer, the meat‑packing magnate. In 1985 (when he was 26), Chuck inherited roughly $500,000 from his family’s Oscar Mayer fortune. That same year, he donated the entire amount to foundations and community organizations. He later left to live in a commune.

When his father, a libertarian conservative, learned of what Chuck had done, he said he was afraid his son had become a Marxist. Chuck responded by saying that he would rather be called a “Gandhian or Christian.”*³ He explained that he didn’t want to spend his life “managing inherited wealth” and that giving it away freed him to pursue community organizing and economic‑justice work.

Collins is now widely known for his work exposing how wealth is accumulated, hidden, and protected in the U.S. He says in the Introduction of BbB “The drive by billionaires to amass ever greater wealth is warping the nonprofit sector, dictating what’s on your dinner plate, and shaping the news you consume.”

How Concentrated Wealth and Power are Ruining Our Lives and Planet is the subtitle of BbB. Collins writes, “With their inordinate wealth and power, billionaires are hijacking our political system with their campaign contributions, paid lobbyists, communication firms, and dark money contributions."

I cannot even introduce here the important chapters in this book, but I strongly recommend reading it. It is a bit pricey to buy, but many public libraries likely have it. (There are several copies in the various Kansas City metro libraries.)

“An Agenda to Reduce Billionaire Power and Improve Our Lives” is the title of the final chapter before the Conclusion, and it includes four major topics with about two dozen subtopics. They are all good suggestions, but they are not very helpful regarding what we ordinary “peons” can do—other than vote for legislators who do have power to follow those suggestions.

At the end of the Conclusion, Collins offers this advice: “Get your information from sources that are not owned and controlled by billionaires.” That is one small thing I did before reading Collins’ book: I quit subscribing to and reading The Washington Post. In doing that, I was following the actions of Jen Rubin, who was the leading opinion article writer of the Post.

In protest to a Jeff Bezos directive in 2025, Rubin left her prominent position and became co-founder of an online publication called “The Contrarian,” which I now read daily. That Substack blog, which started with the tagline “Not owned by anybody,” now has nearly 500,000 subscribers. She allows “tightwads” like me read it for free, and here is a link if you would like to try it out: The Contrarian | Substack.

Ever since the One Big Beautiful (=Ugly) Bill was signed into law on July 4, 2025, I have been concerned about the growing control of billionaires and the extremely wealthy over American life—and incensed that financial resources continue to flow upward to those who need them least, while the poor suffer even more.

That bill delivered $1 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1% of taxpayers, while cutting roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid and SNAP—programs used by the poorest Americans. Nearly half of those tax cuts went to the top 0.1% of earners.

And consider who the POTUS took with him to China last week: 17 CEOs, several of whom were billionaires. Why were they in his entourage? Mainly because of the donations they had made to Trump. Several of them had previously donated $1 million or more to his inaugural fund. So, the president took them along so they could negotiate with China on behalf of their own business interests. The appearance of a quid pro quo is hard to miss.

It is also hard to miss the judgmental words of the prophet Amos, pronouncing woe on the wealthy who “trample on the needy and destroy the poor of the land” (8:4, CEB)—and it is easy to see that Chuck Collins is a present-day Amos.

_____

*1 The cover of the December issue of Sojourners magazine was emblazoned with the words “The Big Steal,” and the cover story was on “The Wealth Extractors: Billionaires are upending our lives and our economy.” It featured an interview of Collins by Julie Polter, the editor of Sojourners.

*2 Collins previously authored a book titled Born on Third Base: A One Percenter Makes the Case for Tackling Inequality, Bringing Wealth Home, and Committing to the Common Good (2016). The main title is said to be the words of Barry Switzer, the famous football coach, but they were not original with him.

*3 Collins has been a lifelong member of the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Note: Research and wording assistance was provided by Claude (Anthropic A.I.).

Three “Lunatics” Supporting the Lunatic-in-Chief

“Is Trump a Lunatic?” is the title of my previous blog post. Bruce Maples, founder of the “Forward Kentucky” website, recently referred to Trump as “the Lunatic-in-Chief.”* This post highlights the “lunacy” (used in the metaphorical sense) of three men closely associated with the POTUS. 

(Pete Hegseth as depicted by Rachel Bitecofer)

Trump delivered an “address to the nation” on December 17. That same day, Maples portrayed the speech as an unhinged, lie-filled, 20‑minute tirade marked by bragging, blame‑shifting toward Biden and the Democrats, and disjointed nonsense.

Andy Curtis is an applied linguist and former president of the TESOL International Association. Back in 2018, he labeled Trump the ‘Lunatic‑in‑Chief.’ Maples cast the December 17 address as yet another performance that fully merited that description. In a 2019 post, Curtis also called Trump the “most famous liar in the world today.”

There are, not surprisingly, many loyalists who support Trump’s prevarication, misleading statements, and gaslighting. This post is a brief look at three “lunatics” who are his main supporters.

Steve Bannon (his given name is Stephen, but he is called Steve in the media and public life), has been closely associated with Trump since 2016.

Bannon (b. 1953) was a close ally of Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart News. After Breitbart’s death in 2012, Bannon became its executive chairman and shaped in into a nationalist, pro‑Trump website. Consequently, Breitbart News came to be known as “the platform for the alt‑right” and was widely seen as “Trump Central” during the 2016 campaign.

After breaking with Trump in early 2018, Bannon started his “War Room” podcasts early in 2019, releasing new episodes five or six times a week. His podcast on March 19, 2026, was labeled as #5227. Bannon’s War Room is often depicted as “ultra-conservative” or “hyper-partisan right,” and it is widely seen as “a hub for extreme MAGA rhetoric.”

Currently, Bannon is clearly one of the “lunatics” actively supporting the Lunatic-in-Chief.

Stephen Miller (although he has the same given name as Bannon, he goes by the full name, never by Steve) has also long been a Trump supporter. Miller (b. 1985) is said to have felt an intense personal connection upon Trump’s June 2015 candidacy announcement, viewing ‘it as aligning perfectly with his longstanding anti-immigration views. At Bannon’s and Jared Kushner’s urging, in 2016 Miller joined Trump’s campaign full-time as a senior policy advisor, writing Trump’s early speeches and embedding nationalist rhetoric like “radical Islam.” His loyalty proved unwavering through Trump’s first term and his 2024 campaign.

Since January 2025, Miller has served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in President Trump’s administration. That position gives him broad oversight of immigration enforcement, homeland security, and domestic policy execution, including mass deportations and executive orders.

Without question, Miller is one of the three main “lunatics” currently supporting the President.

Pete Hegseth (although his given name is Peter, he universally goes by Pete) assumed his first paid federal government role in Trump’s second term, when he nominated Hegseth for secretary of defense in November 2024. The Senate confirmed him after a tie-breaking vote by VP Vance, and he was sworn in on January 25, 2025.

Hegseth (b. 1980) is clearly one of the most important and most dangerous men in the U.S. today. As the Secretary of Defense/War, he is the official most responsible for launching/conducting the current “war” against Iran. As the oft-quoted anonymous saying puts it, “The most dangerous people are those who commit violence believing they are doing God’s will."

As is widely known, Hegseth is a conservative evangelical Christian who embraces a literal interpretation of what the Book of Revelation says about Armageddon and the Rapture. His current involvement in the war on Iran seems clearly to be based on his fundamentalistic Christian beliefs.**

Hegseth has said he will practice “no quarter” in Iran, which means he will refuse to spare enemy lives or take prisoners but will execute all who surrender or are captured. Supposedly, that is legitimate since, in his eyes, all Muslims are going to “fry when they die” (my words, not his) anyway.

Robert Reich’s March 16 Substack post was titled Trump’s Stupidest Cabinet Member, and he said Hegseth, this third of Trump’s “lunatic” enablers, is “a clear winner.”

With the rampant presence and power of these three “lunatics,” I repeat what I said at the end of my previous post: Heaven help us!

_____

  * Following his unsuccessful run for Louisville Metro Council in 2014 as a Democrat and frustrated by weak progressive voices in those elections, Maples founded Forward Kentucky in 2015.

** For those not familiar with the common conservative evangelical view of the end times, see the following articles: “Evangelicalism’s Twin Engines of Destruction: The Theological Innovation Sanctifying Trump’s War in Iran,” “Armageddon is not a strategy for peace in Iran,” and “The Pentagon’s Armageddon Problem,” Rachel Bitecofer’s March 12^th Substack post. (The image at the top of this post was taken from the latter.)

Is Trump a Lunatic?

“Not since Adolf Hitler blew his brains out in a bunker beneath the garden of the German Reich Chancellery on April 30, 1945, have the lives of so many people around the world been so buffeted by the psychosis of a single man.” Those striking words posted by David Rothkopf on March 7 led to the writing of this blog article. 

David Rothkopf

It was early on the morning of March 8 that I read Rothkopf’s words cited above, and I have been thinking about them ever since. Heather Cox Richardson included those words in her March 7 Substack post, and when she quotes and makes positive statements about someone, I pay attention.

I had never heard of David Rothkopf before reading his March 7 Substack post, which began with the words cited above. The title of his article is “Living in a Time of Lunatics and Monsters,” and he has good reason to call Hitler a lunatic/monster. Rothkopf is Jewish, and during the Holocaust, his father, Ernst, was able to escape from Europe and come to the United States.

However, more than three dozen of Ernst’s (and, thus, David’s) relatives were killed, as were most of his childhood friends. One aunt had the misfortune to live with her husband and children in Oswiecim, Poland—the town the Germans called Auschwitz.

Even though I had not heard of David Rothkopf (b. 1955), he has written ten books and more than 1,000 articles on international themes for many mainstream publications such as The New York Times and Foreign Affairs.

It is quite clear to me that what he posted in his March 7 “Need to Know” Substack article should be considered with resolute seriousness.

Rothkopf’s article is the sharpest criticism of a U.S. President that I have ever read—and for good reason. That is what makes his piece so important—and so alarming. In his second paragraph, he asserts that

at this moment in history, the fate of virtually everyone on the planet is being impacted by the toxic cocktail of character flaws, insecurities, and pathologies that are shaping the actions of the President of the United States.

Many of us are incensed that the POTUS has started a war against Iran, and Rothkopf’s criticism is strong, indeed. He says that Trump launched that war “on a whim.” Why? Not only because “he’s insane,” but also because “he’s a malignant narcissist,” “a sociopath,” and “has a fragile ego.”

Trump’s “lunacy,” referring to Rothkopf’s term, is seen in the following ways (among a multitude of others):

** The reason/purpose for his ordering the bombing of Iran is completely unclear. Trump has suggested various reasons, but it seems that even he doesn’t know why he decided to do that—or that he won’t admit what his motive was. (Epstein files? Increasing cost of living prices? Falling polling numbers? All of the above? Something else? Who knows!)

** His calling for an “unconditional surrender of Iran” and even suggesting that perhaps he should pick the new ayatollah—which certainly would not have been the son of the ayatollah who was chosen to rule just two or three days ago.

** And now, he has suggested the takeover of Cuba, perhaps in a manner similar to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela on January 3. Perhaps that would align well with his changing the name Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, a name nobody outside the U.S. uses.

In addition, there is the whole problem of Trump’s love for and use of tariffs, his current insistence on the passing of the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) ahead of the midterm elections, and the possibility that he will do whatever it takes to keep a “big Blue wave” from happening in the November elections.

In light of all I have mentioned above, it is appalling that Trump’s term of office doesn’t end until January 20, 2029, nearly three years from now! “Heaven help us!” as the old-timers used to say.

But don’t forget the No Kings! protests planned for March 28. The promoters explicitly expect it to be the largest political protest in U.S. history. Surely that will have significant ramifications for the November elections.

The Affordability Conundrum

According to a recent online post by CNBC, “Affordability is a buzzword right now.” That certainly seems to be the case, but what does affordable mean? Dictionaries define affordable as “able to be afforded” or “having a cost that is not too high”—but those definitions are so ambiguous they have little meaning. Despite its current popularity, affordability seems clearly to be a conundrum. 

Marked cost-of-living increases in the past year have sparked widespread discussion about affordability. In campaigning for the 2024 election, the current POTUS promised that “starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down and we will make America affordable again.”

In a September 2024 speech, Trump promised to get gasoline “below 2 dollars a gallon,” and said this would bring down “the price of everything from electricity rates to groceries, airfares, and housing costs.” Obviously, that hasn’t happened, so what the president says about affordability and what a majority of the voters perceive is a distinct part of the affordability conundrum.

In 2025, gas prices did go down by about 30 cents a gallon (from an average of $3.10 to about $2.80). That has made gasoline more affordable, but $2.80 is a long way from below $2.00—and that decrease is mostly due to lower crude oil prices and weaker global demand rather than due to something Trump did or didn’t do. No president has much influence on gas prices.

As you know, the Olympic Winter Games are now in progress, but the drawing for inexpensive tickets for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles went on sale last month. In fact, I decided to write this blog article when I saw an announcement saying, “Affordable tickets for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics start at $28.”

But, I thought, what about travel and lodging expenses? What is the use of buying an affordable ticket if you don’t have enough money for traveling to LA or staying in a hotel there? According to AI, it is estimated that round-trip flights from Kansas City (where I live) to LA will likely be $400 to $800, and a two-night stay in a LA hotel about the same—a minimum of $1,200 for one person!

So, the “affordable” ticket ends up not seeming so affordable after all.

What about “affordable housing”? There is much in the news media about that issue currently. What is termed affordable housing typically limits costs to 30% of household income to avoid burdening limited means. Obviously, what is “affordable” for middle- and top-income households is certainly not affordable for low-income families.

“Affordable groceries” also depends on one’s income. From what I have found, low-income households spend almost 33% of their after-tax income on food. According to 2023 USDA data, those in the lowest income quintile have an average after-tax income of $16,171, and the average spent annually for food was $5,278.

That percentage of income far exceeds the 10-15% typical for median earners and especially the slightly more than 8% for high earners. And my guess is that the median- and certainly the high-earners eat far better (more delicious and more nutritious) food than low-income people. So, affordability relates to far more than just how much something costs.

The most reasonable approach to affordability seems to be with those who advocate democratic socialism, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City (the same three I also mentioned at the end of my Nov. 10 blog post).

Mayor Mamdani has repeatedly said that affordability is the central crisis facing New Yorkers, and he frames most major policy proposals around lowering the cost of living for working‑class residents. His public statements emphasize rent relief, affordable housing construction, cheaper essentials, and investments that help families stay in the city.

Mamdani links affordability to daily essentials, proposing city‑owned grocery stores to reduce food prices; fast, fare‑free buses to cut transportation costs; no‑cost childcare and support for newborns. He argues these reduce the financial burden on families and help them remain in the city. This, he says, can and will be done by levying higher taxes on those who are wealthy.

So, as we think about the affordability conundrum, let’s consider what that means for all our fellow citizens and not just for us in the middle class. And let’s continue to oppose the present administration’s policies that have shifted so much money from the lower classes to the billionaires who are profiting “bigly” from their benefactor in the White House.   

What Does It Mean to Love One’s Enemies?

It is hard enough to love one’s friends and even harder to love others as we love ourselves. But how can we love our enemies? In both the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:43) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:27), Jesus plainly says, “love your enemies.” 

Why do we have enemies? Are enemies people we harbor enmity against? Probably not in most cases. Why would Jesus’ first followers have had an “enemies list” so that he would have felt the need to urge them to love those on that list?

The answer is clear: our “enemies” are not primarily those we have enmity toward; rather, they are those who have enmity toward us for whatever reason. Note Jesus’ full statement: “pray for those who persecute you.” Those early followers of Jesus were persecuted, but they certainly were not persecutors.

Consider some notable examples of people who loved their enemies. First, of course, is Jesus himself. As he was being executed by the extremely painful means of crucifixion, Jesus uttered this prayer: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

Anabaptists (with whom I have long identified) have great respect for Dirk Willems, the Dutch Anabaptist martyr in 1569. He escaped from prison and was chased by a guard who fell through thin ice during the chase. But Willems turned back and rescued his pursuer—and then was recaptured, tortured, and killed.

Four hundred years later, Martin Luther King, Jr., steadfastly called upon Black people to show love for their enemies, the White people who had often lynched their ancestors for centuries and were still mistreating them in the present. His most well-known book is titled Strength to Love (1963).

I was certainly not a supporter of Charlie Kirk, although I grieved that he was killed. But I remain impressed by what Erika Kirk, Charlie’s wife, said at his memorial service. She forgave the shooter. Unlike the President, she expressed love and forgiveness toward him rather than hatred.

These are widely known examples of people who showed love for their enemies. Most of us, though, will likely never be in such dramatic situations. What does it mean for us to love our enemies?

“Love is more an attitude and action than a feeling.” That is the title of #25 in my book Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (2018). In that chapter, I cite John Hick’s explanation regarding the type of love Jesus meant when he commanded us to love our enemies.

The British philosopher writes that love is “to value a person in such ways as actively to seek his or her deepest welfare and fulfillment” (Philosophy of Religion, 1963). Or, as we might say today, love actively seeks the flourishing of all people, including our enemies.

In my above-mentioned book, I also cite how MLK importantly distinguished between liking and loving. King noted in Strength to Love that Jesus did not say, “Like your enemies,” admitting that it is “almost impossible to like some people.” But Jesus’ command was for us to love people whom we don’t like.

So, love of enemies is not sentimental affection, but deliberate goodwill and moral commitment. That is the attitude Jesus calls us to have for those who say hurtful things to/about us or do harmful things to us.

Loving in that way certainly doesn’t mean condoning injurious things that are said or done, to us or to others. We can’t be neutral concerning right and wrong, good and evil. Often, we must “hate” what people do, but love them for who they are, persons created in the image of God.

We could make a long list of people who do things we strongly disapprove of. Many of us have deep dislike for the things the POTUS and his henchmen such as Steven Miller and Russell Vought say and do, and we have the right (and responsibility?) to speak out against them.

But if we are serious about following Jesus’ command that we love our “enemies,” whether they are government officials we dislike, cantankerous neighbors, or whoever, we still must seek their “deepest welfare” and their flourishing. That is both for the well-being of others as well as for ourselves.

Remember, "hate is more harmful to the vessel in which it is stored than to the people on whom it is poured."

The Five Worst Things of POTUS 47’s First 100 Days

April 12 was the 80^th anniversary of the death of Pres. Roosevelt, who first referred to “the first 100 days” of a president’s term. Yesterday, April 29, was the 100^th day of Pres. Trump’s second term. What a difference between those first 100 days of one of the best U.S. presidents and the first 100 days of one of the worst!*¹ 

The U.S. was in terrible shape when Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. The first 100 days of his presidency were pivotal in turning the nation toward recovery and saving the country, which was “in the throes of an unmatched calamity” and “on the brink of collapse”.*²

In March 1933, almost 25% of the civilian labor force (15,500,000 people!) were unemployed. And on his inauguration day, the most immediate challenge facing the new president was the imminent collapse of the US banking system. 

Jonathan Alter is an American journalist and best-selling author. One of his significant books is The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope (2006). On the first page of his book, Alter avers that in March 1933 the U.S. was experiencing “its greatest crisis since the Civil War.”

The U.S. was in relatively good shape when Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2025. Of course, there were problems, but the recovery from the debilitating COVID-19 pandemic was better than that of the world’s other industrialized countries. The unemployment rate was low (4%), and the inflation rate was down to 3% from the pandemic peak of over 9% in 2022.

In the very first paragraph of his inaugural address, Trump said that “the golden age of America begins right now.” He vowed that every single day he would put America first and that his top priority would be “to create a nation that is proud, prosperous, and free.” He emphasized how bad things were currently and declared that “from this moment on, America’s decline is over.”

To a large extent, his promise to “make America great again” meant going back to the way things were before Roosevelt. That had long been the strong desire of right-wing politicians and a large segment of U.S. citizens who had long listened to easily accessible conservative “talk radio” programs and Fox News telecasts. Trump’s campaign rhetoric exploited that desire.

In the early 2010s, I was teaching a night class at Rockhurst University in Kansas City, and on the way home I would listen to a local AM station. That meant I often heard the rantings of Mark Levin.*³ He often said the U.S. needed to go back to the way it was 80 years ago, and I finally realized he meant going back to the way things were before FDR.

So, what are the five most harmful things Trump has done during these first 100 days of his second term? The following is my tentative list with only brief comments about each—and I could be persuaded to revise my list by readers who suggest something they see as worse or who think these “worse five’ should be ordered differently.

1) Harm to world peace. Because of Trump’s rhetoric and actions, the likelihood of warfare with the use of tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons has become greater in the last 100 days. His coziness with Putin, his negative views of NATO, and the current tariff war with China are troublesome signs of what might possibly happen in the not-so-distant future. 

2) Harm to the global environment. On inauguration day, Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. to again withdraw from the landmark Paris climate agreement. Then here in the U.S., he has made multiple moves to do away with environmental programs designed to slow global warming and ecological collapse.

3) Harm to needy people at home and abroad. In February, the Trump administration said it is eliminating more than 90% of USAID’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. assistance, which eliminates the majority of U.S. development and humanitarian help abroad. Other cuts remove funding designed to help the neediest people in the U.S.

4) Harm to the worldwide economy. As CNN posted on April 28, “Trump took the US economy to the brink of a crisis in just 100 days.” On the same day, Reuters wrote, “Risks are high that the global economy will slip into recession this year, according to … a Reuters poll, in which scores [of economists] said U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs have damaged business sentiment.”

5) Harm to the rule of law. Domestically, Trump’s furor over migrants in the U.S. has led to the repeated rejection of “due process,” which is the bedrock foundation of the rule of law. According to CBS on April 23, Trump “is now arguing undocumented migrants should not be given a trial where they could challenge being removed from the country.”

_____

*¹ According to the conclusions of the 2024 Presidential Greatness Project (see here), Roosevelt ranked number two, following Abraham Lincoln, and Trump was 45^th, dead last—and there is ample reason to think that Trump’s second term so far is worse than his first. 

*² The words cited are those of Naftali Bendavid, the senior national political correspondent of the Washington Post. “Trump claims mantle of FDR’s first 100 days, but differences are stark” was the title of his April 28 post.

*³ As I learned on Wikipedia, “A 2016 study which sought to measure incendiary discourse on talk radio and TV found that Levin scored highest on its measure of ‘outrage’." He also “helped to legitimate the use of uncivil discourse.” Earlier this month, Trump appointed Levin to become a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. It is not hard to understand why Trump appreciates what Levin has been saying on talk radio for so long and more recently on Fox News.

Note: To those of you who like statistics, I encourage you to take a look at "How Low Can Trump Go" a Substack post made yesterday by Rachel Bitecofer​ regarding Trump's polling numbers (click here--and let me know if you have trouble accessing Rachel's Substack post).

"Good Friday," Easter, and Spiritual Warfare

Today, April 18, is what Christians often call Good Friday, and two days from now is Easter Sunday. These are two of the most significant days for Christians, but they are not usually linked to what is often referred to as spiritual warfare, which is largely based on Ephesians 6:10~17 in the New Testament. 

Spiritual warfare is not interpreted the same by all Christians. As might be expected, the understanding and emphasis of moderates/progressives tend to be quite different from that of conservatives/traditionalists.

The decisive verse regarding spiritual warfare is found in Ephesians 6:

… we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (v. 12, KJ21).

Conservative evangelical Christians tend to interpret these words as referring to personal struggles of individual Christians. For example, John Mark Comer, a well-known evangelical pastor and author, writes about spiritual warfare in his book Live No Lies.

Comer (b. 1980) interprets spiritual warfare primarily as the struggle of individual Christians against the lies that rob them of the enjoyment of personal peace and freedom.

Shane Claiborne (b. 1975), a progressive “evangelical,” interprets spiritual warfare quite differently:

This [2024] election was about principalities and powers – racism, patriarchy, xenophobia. This is not just about Trump. Certainly he has unleashed some of our worst demons. But this is bigger than one man. It is about spiritual and systemic powers that seek to harm some of our most vulnerable neighbors.*¹

The best interpretation of spiritual warfare I know of is by William Stringfellow, a lawyer and lay theologian. I wrote about him and his understanding of “principalities and powers” in my Jan. 5, 2018, blog article, and I encourage you to (re)read that post (see here).*2

In that article, I cited these words from one of Stringfellow’s most important books, An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land (1977). He wrote there that “principalities and powers” are not some esoteric spiritual forces of evil in a nonvisible realm.

Rather, Stringfellow explained, they are “all authorities, corporations, institutions, traditions, processes, structures, bureaucracies, ideologies, systems” and the like (p. 27).

That blog post made seven years ago was about the spiritual warfare evidenced by Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” soon after Jesus’ birth. But even more, Jesus’ crucifixion on “Good Friday,” and his resurrection on that first Easter Sunday, are also prime examples of spiritual warfare.

Jesus, the light of the world, combats Satan, the “prince of this world,” according to the New Testament (see John 8:12, 14:30, NIV). In Paradise Lost, John Milton refers to Satan as “the prince of darkness,” the embodiment of evil.

The Lord’s Prayer points to an ongoing cosmic conflict between God’s kingdom of light and the devil’s temporary kingdom of darkness (Rev. 12:7~10). Through Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the Triune God won the decisive battle against the formidable force of evil (= “Satan” or the devil).

The good news of Easter is not primarily about the hope of future life in a far-off heaven by those who believe in Jesus. Rather, it is about the kingdom (kindom) of God becoming victorious here and now, God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

But the fight between light and darkness, good and evil, is by no means over. Spiritual warfare continues. That is why God-believers are admonished to put on “the whole armor of God” so that they may be able to “stand against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:11, KJ21).

It is with great sadness that we see spiritual warfare apparent now even between Good Friday- and Easter-celebrating Christians aligned with decidedly different understandings of the Gospel of Jesus.

One side is composed to a large degree by MAGA Christians who see Trump’s assassination attempt as linked to spiritual warfare and also interprets that warfare as being primarily against abortion and LGBT people.*3

On the other side are those of us who see the force of evil working through the destructive power structures elucidated by Stringfellow. Those structures, unfortunately, include the current Trump Administration.

I encourage you to click on this link and read Thinking Friend Jarrett Banks’s Palm Sunday prayer at First Christian Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. He expressed so well the side I want to identify with. What about you?

_____

*¹ These words are cited in a Nov. 8, 2024, post by John Fea (see here).

*² The Wikipedia article about Stringfellow (1928~85) correctly mentions that his work has been advanced by New Testament scholar/professor Walter Wink (1935~2012), who wrote a trilogy on “the powers.” It also notes his influence on “evangelical social activists” such as Jim Wallis and Shane Claiborne.

*3 About three weeks ago, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “I certainly believe in spiritual warfare. And I think I saw it firsthand, especially throughout the campaign trail with President Trump. And I think there certainly were evil forces. And I think that the president was saved by the grace of God on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, and he's in this moment for a reason."

On March 22 a Catholic priest speaking at a conference in California emphasized “the reality of spiritual warfare in the fight against abortion, the demonic attacks against the family and life issues, and the connection between abortion, the culture, and the spiritual forces of darkness.”

And then this on April 2: “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and two of her fellow GOP congresswomen discussed her bill banning transgender medical services for children and the ‘spiritual warfare’ surrounding gender ideology” (see here).